COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Vs. BALVIR AUTO AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the revision against the order of the Tribunal dated October 14, 2003 for the assessment year 1994 -95. The applicant was carrying on the business of motorcycle and scooter parts. During the year under consideration, the applicant has disclosed the sales in the return at Rs. 17,35,386. Before the assessing authority, the assessee did not appear despite the notice being issued and has not produced any books of accounts and the purchase vouchers. The assessing authority levied the tax on the turnover disclosed treating it as the sale of imported motor parts. The applicant filed application under section 30 of the Act, but the same has also been rejected on the ground that no one appears on behalf of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the applicant filed the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal). The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) by the order dated February 12, 2001, allowed the appeal in part. The appellate authority given the benefit that some of the purchases might have been made within the State of U.P. and some of the purchases have been made from outside the State of U.P.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the applicant as well as the Commissioner, Trade Tax, filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and rejected the appeal filed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax. The Tribunal has held that there is no material on record to show that the applicant has used any form XXXI and imported the goods from outside the State of U.P. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the exemption on the entire disclosed turnover treating it sales of the U.P. purchased goods.

(3.) THE learned standing counsel submitted that under section 12A of the Act, the burden lies upon the assessee to prove its case that the purchases were made within the State of U.P. He submitted that there is no dispute about the sales. The assessee himself has disclosed sales, but the assessee should produce the purchase vouchers to prove that the goods have been purchased within the State of U.P., which the assessee failed to do. Therefore, the assessing authority has rightly presumed such goods as the imported goods. He further submitted that without any basis the first appellate authority has apportioned the disclosed sale and allowed the relief to some extent on the ground that some of the sales were relating to U.P. purchased goods. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in declaring the entire sale exempted from tax on the ground that it was U.P. purchased goods as there is no evidence that the goods have been imported from outside the State of U.P. and no form XXXI has been issued.